I didn't mean literally illustrate it but I understand the confusion. It will be very interesting to see what you have to say on the subject.
Peace proposal
- Thread starter bbb
- Start date
This comment pertains to "seeing" in "general". Not EVERYBODY will see the same thing and some people see nothing at all. "Perceptions" AREN'T the same for everybody. This goes for CTE or anything else that requires people to attempt to see the SAME "perception". You may see the same object in relationship to where the other object is, but it doesn't mean you can "see" invisible "lines" that do not exist in reality.
Look at this picture. I can see what is in it clearly, but other people can't see it at all.
Attachments
1980 is what I see. Yes, I agree that we all see "perceptions" differently, but I would love to see someone (being an expert) show me what he can see and do with CTE.
Last edited:
If I claim to know "CTE" or any other aiming method and then run 100 balls, how are you to know "which" method I'm using?
You can't see what I am seeing, you are just taking my word for what I say I'm doing.
This isn't a knock on anything, this is just reality.
CTE aiming sticks out like a sore thumb in relation to any other aiming when it's done correctly. Hal wasn't just blowing smoke when he said that CTE is very odd and different at first. The oddness and difference of CTE is very explicable in that anyone trying it and then connecting will soon know that they are actually aiming on a different plane and in a new dimension.
Stan Shuffett
I suppose so, but I would want to see someone demonstrate CTE with the full understanding of what he sees and all the parameters. Did you learn it from the DVD's or visit Hal Houge as the others have done?
I don't know "CTE". I know "aiming" that I learned on my own from thousands and thousands of hours of shooting.
I know the basic concepts of multiple aiming systems, but I don't think I utilize any one of them alone. I think I use a "blend" of everything I have read, learned and experienced from shooting a million balls and trying different things out.
I don't have a problem of seeing where I'm supposed to hit. The majority of my misses are due to "not hitting" where I'm supposed to hit. Those misses are due to carelessness, not aligning properly, or stroking improperly.
I would like to spend a few hours with Stan to learn his system. I like to try different things out. If they work for me, I use them. If they don't, then I won't, but at least I'll know something I didn't know before.
I know how you pocket balls because in the end, as far as I can tell, there isn't an aiming system that can essentially do the work for you and tell you where to shoot the cb. So when you say I do x,y and z and the ball falls then that tells me you don't understand the full extent of what is going on. We all pocket balls by using our experience, or feel. We use one method or the other to get the aim point in the right zip code, but the brain has to do the rest. Think about it. How do you aim with your system if the balls are sticky and are throwing more?
All this is said with the caveat that Stan says he will be explaining the mystery as he calls it in the book. That's why I have rarely commented on CTE in many months now. I'm looking forward to what Stan has to say and I hope it all comes to light. I'd love to be able to aim like that, honestly.
Please stop it entirely and be a man of your word. Wait until after the book comes out. NO MORE UNTIL THEN. Can you handle it?
I pretty much HAVE stopped talking about CTE. You are the one who keeps blathering on over every perceived slight. Occasionally I will mention it in the context of other aiming systems, but even then rarely. Off the top of my head I'd guess you can't find more than maybe 5 posts in the last 6 months that have much of anything to do with CTE other than a passing mention. I think you'll find 0 critical posts since Mike posted his new rules. Wish I could say the same about youze guys when it comes to Poolology. God knows why Brian didn't report some of the hateful posts against Poolology to the moderators. That includes Stan as of just a day or two ago, sorry to say. Had I said anything like that after the new rules I would probably get banned, and would deserve it.
Here you are again. OUT OF CONTROL yet saying you don't post. I have news for you, YOU'RE POSTING.
You don't get banned being on the protected list.
100 percent not true. I recently took some time off. When i came back to play i was missing a similar angled shot consistently by about 3 inches. Seems my eyes werent totally back into cte mode for that shot and i was using the wrong sweep. A few practice shots i got the right sweep back and problem solved.
It's your belief that HAMB shouldnt have allowed it to happen but it did happen because i trust in cte
I'm trying not to get dragged back into this because I know where it leads. But, if we can keep it civil, here goes: All I am saying is that CTE gets you in the neighborhood of the pocket. It might be dead on or off by 3 inches depending on the actual ball alignment. My contention, absent any other evidence, is that when you sweep or even pivot into the shot, you make an adjustment that you are not accounting for. It might even happen during the stroke.
If you take the same shot in your example above but move the ob 2 inches to the left, you will miss the pocket 2 inches to the left if you perform the same CTE step. Of course all you guys say I am wrong and Stan says he will explain it in the book. So fine, I can live with that. We don't need to keep rehashing it for no reason. Just drop it and let Stan actually explain what he calls the mystery of CTE in his book.
If you want to let this degenerate into name calling then so be it. The alternative is to behave like an adult.
-------------------
Last edited:
You are right about that. Stroke is #1.
Cool. I see it.
Exactly. I've made the same point.
You weren't dragged in, you jumped in. You state that we don't need to keep rehashing it, but, here you are making the same old false claims you always do.
----------------------:
Last edited:
If you can't get CTE to work it's because you're doing something wrong. It's not a system you can master in a few hours. It took me over 10 hours of table time before my potting was over 50% using a pivoting technique. I would make 3-4 shots then miss a few. The 'trick' is to do every step consistently. In the next 10 hours my potting was up to 90% as my technique became more natural. This was shooting at the line through CCB and NOT looking at the OB after acquiring my visual. It's impossible to 'tweak' to a target you're not looking at.
Since you believe it doesn't work it's no surprise you don't get it. In your hubris you may be making a subconscious adjustment to get back to your original pivot point, ever consider that? Here's a chemical truism for you. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. I just let your comments about CTE settle to the bottom of the flask.